A BILL to amend and reenact § 32.1-174.3 of the Code of Virginia, relating to appointment of receiver for waterworks; public waterworks.
HB1190 amends Virginia Code § 32.1-174.3 governing when the Commissioner of Health may seek a court-appointed receiver for a private waterworks. The bill restates and clarifies the circumstances under which a receiver may be requested, including when a water system can no longer provide pure water, lacks adequate capacity, fails to comply with a Commissioner order, has been abandoned, is subject to a forfeiture order, or is operating under an emergency order due to imminent public health danger.
The bill also sets out the court process for receivership petitions, requiring a hearing within 10 days and allowing the court to appoint a receiver if the statutory conditions are met and the problems are unlikely to be remedied without intervention. Once appointed, the receiver would take control of the waterworks, operate it in the customers’ best interests, and have court-granted authority to manage assets, funds, and reporting. The receivership would continue until the system is returned to the owner, transferred, or otherwise reconfigured in the public interest, and the bill preserves the owner’s underlying legal liability while limiting the receiver’s personal liability except for gross negligence or intentional acts.
HB1190 would affect the regulation of private waterworks in Virginia by reinforcing the Commissioner of Health’s authority to intervene when a water system is failing to provide safe and adequate service. It would not create a new regulatory program, but it would refine the receivership statute and the procedures for court oversight, potentially making it easier for the state to stabilize troubled water systems and protect customers and public health.
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so the bill’s sentiment cannot be measured from floor or committee discussion. Based on the text alone, the measure appears protective and remedial in nature, aimed at ensuring safe drinking water and continuity of service when a private waterworks is in distress.
The main point of potential contention is the scope of state intervention in privately owned utilities. Supporters would likely emphasize public health, customer protection, and the need for a rapid remedy when a water system fails, while opponents or affected owners may be concerned about receivership being imposed by court petition, the transfer of operational control away from the owner, and the financial and legal consequences of state intervention. The bill’s liability protections for receivers and continued liability for owners also suggest a possible tension over accountability during and after receivership.